Michael Jordan's Chinese-name dispute is often reduced to “Jordan won back his name”. The court record is more useful than that headline: it shows how a Chinese translation of a foreign person's name can qualify as a prior right, why the evidence must address the particular sign, and why the results differed across related applications.

This case study focuses on the Supreme People's Court's 2016 administrative trademark decisions, including the judgment later published as Guiding Case No. 113. It does not describe every later dispute involving Jordan or Qiaodan Sports. MY CNTM was not a representative in these proceedings; this is analysis of public court materials.

The dispute: a Chinese name and a registered trademark

Michael Jeffrey Jordan challenged Qiaodan Sports' registration of 乔丹, the Chinese name by which he was widely known. Guiding Case 113 concerns registration No. 6020569 in Class 28, rather than an English JORDAN registration or a general claim to every basketball-related image.

The Supreme People's Court recognised a name-right claim where the Chinese designation was known to the relevant public in China, used to refer to the individual, and stably associated with him. The association did not need to be exclusive. Active use of the Chinese designation by Jordan himself was not a prerequisite to protection. See the official Guiding Case 113.

What the 2016 judgments actually did

In the group of ten cases publicly pronounced in December 2016, Jordan succeeded in three involving the Chinese characters 乔丹. The court set aside the challenged administrative rulings and lower-court judgments and required the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to decide again.

In the other seven cases, involving QIAODAN or qiaodan and certain composite marks, the asserted name-right claim did not succeed. Those decisions cannot be rewritten as a holding that every phonetic spelling of a famous person's name is protected. The Supreme People's Court's account of the ten cases expressly distinguishes the outcomes.

The relief was a remand for fresh administrative decisions following judicial review. These judgments did not award Jordan civil infringement damages or automatically assign the disputed registrations to him. A report about the case should state the actual order rather than substitute “ownership transferred”.

Why this matters when choosing a Chinese name

For planning purposes, treat three questions separately:

  1. Which sign is being protected? Chinese characters, a Latin-alphabet spelling, a logo and a composite mark need their own analysis.
  2. What right supports the challenge? Here, the central right was a natural person's name right. A corporate brand cannot simply claim the same right without identifying an appropriate legal basis.
  3. What does the evidence show in China? Build a dated record of how relevant Chinese audiences identify the person or brand. Overseas fame and a preferred internal translation are not interchangeable with evidence of Chinese public recognition.

Our Chinese-name guide explains how to plan the wording before launch. The English–Chinese similarity guide addresses a related but different question: whether signs conflict in trademark examination.

Evidence to preserve before there is a dispute

Our practical recommendation is to keep reliable, dated material connecting the exact Chinese designation with the person or business concerned. Depending on the right asserted, relevant material may include Chinese-language media coverage, authorised campaigns, contracts, product records and evidence of recognition before the disputed filing date.

Preserve original sources and context, not only a current search-results screenshot. Distinguish independent reporting from your own publicity, and identify the date and audience of each item. These are preparation suggestions; they are not a statement that every item was evidence in Jordan's case or that submitting a standard bundle guarantees success.

For a new brand, clearance and timely filing remain preferable to building a recovery strategy around celebrity litigation. The New Balance Chinese-name case illustrates why a foreign brand's chosen Chinese wording can create a different kind of risk.

Historical law and present instructions

The 2016 judgment applied Article 31 of the 2001 Trademark Law. The corresponding prior-rights provision appears in Article 32 of the 2019 text. The 2026 revision, effective from 1 January 2027, uses a different structure and numbering. Do not cite a new article number as though the historical court applied it.

See our prior-rights guide, bad-faith application guide and 2026 bilingual law. A live instruction also requires a check of procedural deadlines, standing and the current status of each relevant right.

What a brand owner should do next

List the English name, intended Chinese name and material variations. Search them before authorising distributors or packaging. If a conflict already exists, obtain the complete registration record and identify the right and evidence that support the proposed challenge.

Send a China-specific search request with the mark, products and planned Chinese wording. If a dispute needs separate investigation or proceedings, the written quotation should define that scope; a routine filing price is not the cost of litigating a classic case.

Successful protection of international brands in China

For a balanced comparison, read LAFITE’s successful action against deliberate imitation and Michelin’s protection of an established Chinese translation. These decisions show substantive protection for overseas rights holders on the facts and evidence of those cases. Our 2026 deceptive-trademark-use update explains the separate administrative work to protect consumers and fair competition.

Official sources

Public sources checked on 25 October 2026. The case outcomes above concern the identified proceedings; they are not a claim about the present status of every related trademark.